Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.
Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals. Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the environment and suggest that the United States government should create new, much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash.
However, representatives of power companies take the opposite view: they argue that new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences. They use the following arguments to support their position.
Regulations Exist
First, power company representatives point out that effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, one very important regulation requires companies to use liner—special material that prevents coal ash components from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. Companies that dispose of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills must use liner in every new pond or landfill they build.
Concerns About Recycling Coal Ash
Second, some analysts predict that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. Currently, a large portion of coal ash generated by power plants is recycled: it is used, for example, in building materials such as concrete and bricks. Recycling coal ash reduces the need to dispose of it in other ways and presents no environmental danger. However, if new, stricter rules are adopted for handling coal ash, consumers may become concerned that recycled coal ash products are just too dangerous, and may stop buying the products.
Increased Cost
Finally, strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies—perhaps as much as ten times the current costs. Power companies would be forced to increase the price of electricity, which would not be welcomed by the general public.
The passage holds that stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash are unnecessary while the lecture challenges the passage with the following statements.
First, the passage asserts that the existed regulations are adequate enough for the current condition. However, in the lecture, the lady points out that one very important regulation requires companies to use liner aren't implemented in all cases, instead, it only regulates the usage in newly built ponds or landfills while the old ones still contaminate the underground water and harm people's health. Thus, new stricter regulations that work for all cases including those old built ones are necessary.
Secondly, the passage assumes that very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. However, in the lecture, the lady uses the case of mercury to disprove this assumption. She speaks out that even mercury is a noxious chemical material and has strict regulations on its usage, its recycled products still remain sold in public for 50 years. This repudiates the passage's claim.
Last, the passage claims that new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs and thus further influences the price of electricity.
Nonetheless, in the lecture, the lady disputes this claim by pointing out the anticipated increment will be merely one percent per household.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 216, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...ulation requires companies to use liner arent implemented in all cases, instead, it o...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 504, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing those old built ones are necessary. Secondly, the passage assumes that very ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, in all cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1215.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 224.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42410714286 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72694051273 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.611607142857 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 373.5 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.4608907554 49.2860985944 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.5 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.7 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12175606842 0.272083759551 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0522624239041 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0575501979747 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0756848992614 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0601572850739 0.0443174109184 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.